Re: Tom Lane 2014-12-16 <14615.1418694...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Jim Nasby writes:
> > On 12/15/14, 1:39 PM, Christoph Berg wrote:
> >> Well, if it's not interesting, let's just forget it. Sorry.
>
> > At the risk of sticking my head in the lions mouth... this is the kind of
> > response that deters p
Jim Nasby writes:
> On 12/15/14, 1:39 PM, Christoph Berg wrote:
>> Well, if it's not interesting, let's just forget it. Sorry.
> At the risk of sticking my head in the lions mouth... this is the kind of
> response that deters people from contributing anything to the project,
> including reviewi
On 12/15/14, 1:39 PM, Christoph Berg wrote:
Re: Tom Lane 2014-12-15 <21813.1418655...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
This is totally silly. The timecnt couldn't be anywhere near INT_MAX (in
fact, it is not allowed to exceed TZ_MAX_TIMES, which is currently just
1200). And there are bunches of other instances
Re: Tom Lane 2014-12-15 <21813.1418655...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> This is totally silly. The timecnt couldn't be anywhere near INT_MAX (in
> fact, it is not allowed to exceed TZ_MAX_TIMES, which is currently just
> 1200). And there are bunches of other instances of similar code in PG;
> shall we put equ
Christoph Berg writes:
> a fellow Debian Developer found a minor glitch in
> src/timezone/localtime.c, where binary search is used. Now I don't
> think there is an actual problem (unless there's > 2^30 timezones),
> but it would at least make sense to mark the code as okayish so that
> people runn
Hi,
a fellow Debian Developer found a minor glitch in
src/timezone/localtime.c, where binary search is used. Now I don't
think there is an actual problem (unless there's > 2^30 timezones),
but it would at least make sense to mark the code as okayish so that
people running code scanners won't stumb
